Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behind the Mask (1992 film)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW as part of the Chaneyverse cleanup - see Articles for deletion/Warren Chaney. The Bushranger One ping only 07:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Behind the Mask (1992 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another Warren Chaney-related article (see also 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8). It's poor form to remove a whole bunch of content from an article right before nominating it for deletion. That was not my intention, but I'm also loathe to restore that content just for the sake of decorum. Here is the previous version of the article. I started looking through the articles of the now-blocked socks for the usual glut of unreliable catalog/database/primary sources that characterizes the bunch and didn't even realize I had removed all of the sources from this one. It looks to fail WP:NFILM, but at best this is a WP:TNT scenario, having been created/written primarily by a sock puppet and having no reliable sources at all. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 05:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 05:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. The film is mentioned in an overall article about Chaney in this local paper and it's briefly mentioned here, but that looks to be about it as far as coverage goes. Given that this is one of several sockpuppet created articles and that there are major, major issues with verifying claims in all of the articles, I think that deleting this is the best option here. A redirect can be created later after the issues with the main article have been resolved. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. There doesn't seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources.  I can't find anything that isn't already listed here, and I agree that it's not enough to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources, no notability. I did a google search in site:news.google.com for "warren chaney" and most of the hits were from this local paper from his hometown, the Kentucky New Era. It seems like they recycle mundane stories about him ever few years and generally write whatever he says in an interview. Permstrump (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.    Musa Talk   ☻ 11:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit to add: This same local paper has reported numerous times that Chaney has a PhD in psychology and is a practicing psychologist, but his PhD dissertation from UNT is available online and it says his PhD was in management. Even if he did get some kind of combined degree in UNT's behavioral science program, which there's no documented indication of, it's a clear misrepresentation to call him a psychologist. Therefore, I definitely do not consider that local paper a reliable source, especially for the numerous articles that were clearly based off of an interview with Chaney, many of them written by the same journalist, Lowell Atchley. It's the paper for the small town her grew up in and then kept writing articles on him for years and years after he moved away. Why was he so interesting to that one journalist? I think either the journalist believed all of it and thought he was a local kid who became a big celebrity or Chaney would just call him up and ask him to do a story. Permstrump (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete another non notable entry in what I am starting to term 'the Chaneyverse'RegisteredTM.svg or, perhaps 'Chaneypedia' Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Box office collection is $32.3 million. I think it will be unfair to say Delete.--  Musa Talk   ☻ 20:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a source for that? I just looked up box office numbers for 1992, I don't see the movie there.   Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What box office? It was a 6-part miniseries not a theatrical release. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, fun fact: The sole imdb review (glowing praise, of course), was added the same week the Americamovie website was registered and the same week many of these articles were created. And wouldn't you know it, that reviewer's only other reviews were for other titles currently under examination or at AfD (also glowing). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * $32 million is kind of a lot for a film that's not in Allmovie. In fact, that's more than Candyman, Captain Ron, and Kuffs grossed.  Now, I may very well be the only living person who liked Kuffs, but it's at least a vaguely familiar title to film-goers.  I think it's kind of weird that Box Office Mojo has absolutely no data on this film's gross.  I'm not quite as quick as other editors here to label things a hoax, but I seriously doubt that this obscure Chaney film outgrossed Kuffs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I never heard of Kuffs but I agree with your sentiment. :), check out the dates of the reviews for his books on goodreads.com. They're all made by an account called Robert Stroud that was created on the same day that he rated all of Chaney's books 5 stars and then never rated another book again. BTW apparently the real Robert Stroud was a notorious serial killer. I just noticed there's supposedly a book called Warren Chaney on goodreads and the description says it's based off of his wikipedia content. Permstrump (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure, but you've heard of Captain Ron. I see how you roll.  I bet you never heard of Shakes the Clown, either.  For shame, for shame.  By the way, it's pretty common for people to republish Wikipedia's content.  It's totally legal, but it's kind of pointless.  Like buying a print magazine about the Internet.  I swear, that is something only a baby boomer would do.  But, no, a book that republishes Wikipedia's articles is meaningless.  Happens all the time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of Kuffs, either. Maybe you're using the film classics Captain Ron and Shakes the Clown to throw us off the scent of your hoax... The Kuffs article is probably filled with references to "NinjaRobot Enterprises" and "Slater Production Inc."... &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.